octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Octave-maintainers Digest, Vol 76, Issue 32


From: vivek dogra
Subject: Re: Octave-maintainers Digest, Vol 76, Issue 32
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:50:42 +0530

Hello,
I would like to contribute to the community by fixing a bug. Please let me know how can i go about it.

With regards,
Vivek

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:30 PM, <address@hidden> wrote:
Send Octave-maintainers mailing list submissions to
        address@hidden

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/octave-maintainers
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        address@hidden

You can reach the person managing the list at
        address@hidden

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Octave-maintainers digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Please build the JIT branch (Max Brister)
   2. Debugging Octave wiki (Juan Pablo Carbajal)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:54:33 -0500
From: Max Brister <address@hidden>
To: Michael Goffioul <address@hidden>
Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
Subject: Re: Please build the JIT branch
Message-ID:
        <CAL864v_UgONuQnDNe86X=address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Michael Goffioul
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Results on Atom N270 500MB RAM, compiled with VS2010 (with debug enabled):
>
> n = 1e6
> K = 500
>
> with JIT:
>   vectorized = 24.31s
>   loopy = 0.203s (impressive, compared to the result without JIT...)
>
> without JIT:
>   vectorized = 23.8s
>   loopy = 130s
>
> I also tried the complex test:
>
> a = b = 1+1i;
> for ii=1:5
>   a = a + b;
> endfor
>
> unfortunately it generates a segmentation fault (works fine without JIT). If
> the goal is to enforce calling convention, then I suggest you use the
> appropriate modifiers instead of extern "C". If you want I can give it a
> quick try here.
>
> To compile successfully with MSVC, I had to apply the attached patch. The
> reason is to avoid duplicate symbols with liboctave when linking
> liboctinterp. MSVC is a bit pesky when it comes to instantiating template
> classes containing non-inlined methods and exporting the symbols in a DLL.
> In this specific case, problems occurred when compiling Array-jit.cc; I had
> to:
> 1) avoid a dll-exportable Array<octave_value> to be included, like in
> Cell.h, otherwise MSVC will try to instantiate *all* Array methods,
> including those in Array.cc, but those cannot be instantiated properly with
> octave_value as template parameter
> 2) mark Array<int> as dll-imported, to avoid MSVC to re-instantiate the
> methods in Array.cc for T=int; if it does, these symbols will clash with
> those exported from liboctave
>
> I think the patch is harmless and non-intrusive for other compilers, so I
> think it could be applied directly in your branch.

I applied the patch with the minor change of using extern for the
forward declaration of Array<octave_idx_type> in Array-jit.cc (this
was required in order to compile with gcc).

Max Brister


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:18:03 +0200
From: Juan Pablo Carbajal <address@hidden>
To: Octave Maintainers <address@hidden>
Subject: Debugging Octave wiki
Message-ID:
        <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi,
I started the wiki page about debugging octave.
Please fill in your experience and habits (shortly).
http://octave.org/wiki/index.php?title=Debugging_Octave

--
M. Sc. Juan Pablo Carbajal
-----
PhD Student
University of Z?rich
http://ailab.ifi.uzh.ch/carbajal/


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Octave-maintainers mailing list
address@hidden
https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/octave-maintainers


End of Octave-maintainers Digest, Vol 76, Issue 32
**************************************************


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]